CHAPTER IV: FORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES AND MINISTRY, CHIEFLY OUTSIDE GALILEE
2. THE FORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES
HOME | Contents | PART I | PART IIa: 114.Pharasaic traditions and the true service of God | 115.Jesus grants the prayer of a Gentile woman | 116.A deaf man healed from an impediment of speach | 117.The second multiplication of loaves | 118.Jesus refuses to give a sign from heaven | 119.Jesus teaches His disciples | 120.The blind man of Bethsaida | 121.Peter's confession and Christ's promise | 122.The first prediction of the Passion and Resurrection | 123.He who desires to be saved must follow Jesus | 124.The speedy coming of the kingdom of God | PART IIb.
Pharisaic traditions and the true service of God (114).
Mark
vii.1-23; Matt.
xv.1-20.
[St. Luke's plan had no need of these questions of rabbinical
casuistry, of which no mention is made in his record of the inaugural discourse
of Jesus.]
St. John has just told us that Jesus returned to Galilee.
In the gospels
of Mark and Matthew we find Him there,
watched by Pharisees and Scribes who
had come from Jerusalem.
The leaders in Israel,
seriously upset by the words
of this man who assumed the title of Son of God
and thought Himself above the
law of the Sabbath on that account,
have therefore once more delegated some
of their adherents
to see if they can catch Him in the act of violating established
custom.
There was no difficulty about that when they were dealing with the
disciples of Jesus
who, though they were devoted to the Law,
were simple-minded
men
and little versed in the minutiae of rabbinical casuistry.
Before long
they were observed taking food with unwashed
or, as was said, common hands,
which was a serious offence.
In later times it was told of Rabbi Aqiba that
he had risked death in prison,
where he had only enough water to quench his
thirst,
rather than omit using it to pour over his hands before eating.
[Strack and Billerbeck, I, p. 702.]
This rinsing of the hands,
which had to be done twice in order that the second
rinsing might remove all traces of the first
since the water would be contaminated,
was done by simply washing, the tips of the fingers.
But if a Jew had been
to the market,
where he ran almost certain risk of defilement through contact
with Gentiles,
this hand-washing had to be done more thoroughly, right up
to the elbow,
with the aid of about a hundred gallons of spring or rain water
-
an immense quantity for Palestine.
[In our commentary on St. Mark we have written of the washing,
by sprinkling, of things bought in the market.
There is never any question of this, however, in Jewish writings, which seems
to show that it was not a common custom.]
In this place St. Mark adds that the
Jews carefully washed cups, pots, and brazen dishes.
What was the origin of such exaggerated scrupulosity about physical cleanliness
which they thus accounted as legal purity?
It was certainly not found in the
Law,
and although by clever manipulation almost anything could be squeezed
out of the Scripture texts by the rabbis,
none of them claimed to be able to
deduce this from the texts.
[Reference was made, however, to Leviticus xv.11.]
They had therefore to be content with the authority
of the ancients;
in other cases this had been considered sufficient for the
determination of right and wrong in religious matters, and for the Scribes
the authority of the ancients was as sacred as the Law itself.
But there were
no grounds for such an attitude.
As interpreters of the Law it was the business
of the Scribes to interpret it and not to burden it with new observances which
distorted the very spirit of the Law.
Through all these ceremonies of purification
the Pharisees had given a dangerous significance to what was an admirable principle
of the Law, namely that Israel must behave as a holy people.
That law of holiness
bound Israel first of all to legal purity, particularly in the choice of food
[Leviticus xi.44 ff.],
and it served as a very necessary barrier of division from the nations by which
Israel was surrounded and whose worship was so impure.
But it was a wholly
external measure, and ought not to have been allowed to swallow up everything
else.
Thus the prophets had been sent, Amos at their head, to preach purity
of heart, and charity especially, which was dearer to God than all observances.
But the Pharisees, instead of making that love of God, which was the first
principle of the Law, the animating principle of the ancient regulations also,
devoted all their attention to the work of cultivating among the people the
sense of their superiority over the Gentiles.
That superiority was made to
consist in taking care to avoid all contact with Gentiles as well as with everything
that was not legally pure.
Jesus resolved to show up by a striking example this deviation from the true
spirit of religion which is so characteristic of all Pharisaic tradition.
The
Law commanded:
'Honour thy father and thy mother;
he that curseth his father and his mother let him be put to death.'
[Exodus xx.12; xxi.17.]
Although there were doubtless bad sons in Israel
in spite of the commandment, yet they were certainly fewer there than elsewhere;
but it was in Israel alone that hardness of heart and ingratitude paraded under
the mask of reverence for God.
The Law contained another precept that nothing
once vowed to God might be devoted to any other use. [Leviticus
xxvii.1-34.]
It was argued that a
vow concerning some particular and concrete object ought to be considered of
greater importance than an obligation that was more general in character, such
as the command of the Law that parents are to be honoured.
It was observed
that there was no commandment that parents should be provided with food, or
that children should hand over to them this or that.
Therefore, when a son
was asked for such a service by his parents, he would, in order to cut short
their solicitations, consecrate to the Lord whatever it might be that they
required.
The consecration was a fictitious one in so far as he did not deprive
himself of the use of the object;
but at the same time it was irrevocable since
it would have been considered sacrilege to give the object to anyone but God.
The discussions of the rabbis prove that this flagrant abuse of religion was
practised.
Rabbi Eliezer (about AD. 90), who had a reputation for holding
singular opinions, expressed the wish that at least some means might be found
for annulling these wicked vows.
But it was thought that there was no way out
of the difficulty,
because the Law was explicit about the validity of vows,
and the strictness of the Law was held to apply even to vows that were immoral
in character.
Eventually, however, it was granted that a doctor of the Law
could dispense from such a vow.
Even if the rabbis of Our Lord's day were
not responsible for inventing and propagating this subterfuge for escaping
from filial obligations (and He does not reproach them with it), at any rate,
by declaring a vow valid even if it were contrary to religion and humanity,
they prevented a bad son who had made such a vow from rendering assistance
to his parents even though he afterwards repented of the vow.
This was tantamount
to neglecting the commandments of God for the sake of traditions which owed
their origin and continuance to men.
Having laid down these principles clearly, Jesus leaves the Pharisees to judge
for themselves what was the worth of their scruples concerning legal purity
before eating.
But He desired to point out the way for the solution of this
problem to such of the crowd as were willing to listen to Him.
Under the form
of an enigma He contrasts what goes into a man with what comes out of him.
From the circumstances which brought about this discussion we understand that
what goes into a man is, food, a thing which has no moral quality in itself;
what comes from him is his actions, good or bad.
The Law, it is true, contained
a whole list of unclean foods,
and Jesus abstained from eating them.
What He
therefore wishes His hearers to understand is this:
that food which is clean
according to the Law -
and there is no question of any other kind -
could not
stain the soul even if it were touched with unwashed hands.
He is not derogating
from fidelity to the Law;
the rabbis knew that better than anyone.
But He
denounces their traditions as a distortion of the Law,
though the rabbis claimed
that these traditions were its safeguard, its protecting hedge,
and they were
proud of them as a masterpiece of their assiduous study and clever subtlety.
Hence they were annoyed and pretended to be scandalized.
Even the Apostles
were somewhat concerned about the matter.
To think of incurring reproof from
such masters as the rabbis!
Certainly the disciples would never have tried
to defend what they had done.
But to His followers Jesus says:
'Let them alone;
they are blind guides.
Now if a blind man leads a blind man,
both of them will fall into the ditch.'
A child with good sight can easily lead a
blind man;
but if a pair of blind men left to themselves try to face the crowd
with each other's assistance,
with what caution will they grope their way along!
The Scribes are blind men
who think themselves in the light;
they advance to the precipice without any
hesitation,
leading along with them the mass of the people who obey their authority.
Reassured by this, the disciples - or rather Peter in their name - begin to
ask what the parable means as soon as they are alone with Jesus in the house,
probably the one He used when staying at Capharnaum.
To their ears alone He
explains His meaning with a force and a realism that is unusual with Him.
St.
Mark has preserved the exact wording for us.
The heart - and the heart alone
is of consequence here - cannot be denied by what a man eats.
In philosophical
terminology this would have been expressed thus:
since man, considered as
man, is reason and will, he cannot be defiled by material food because it can
have no contact with the spiritual part of him.
And that is precisely what
the word 'heart' means in Hebrew usage, the spiritual principle in man.
The
functions of the material heart are not in question.
By the heart is here meant the faculty of loving God and keeping one's self pure in His sight.
Hence what enters into a man has nothing to do with the heart:
'it goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy.'
Thus was solved a grave question of principle.
The Law of Moses had, it is
true, consecrated certain customs that were traditional among the Israelites,
and when God thus approved them they received the force of divine law.
But
the prescriptions of the Law of Moses were not to be understood as denying
the principles of common sense;
the distinction between clean and unclean
foods was not in itself a question of conscience, but only because this distinction
had been imposed by positive law.
Later on the Apostles came to understand the immense significance of this obvious fact,
and St. Mark goes on to say:
'This was a declaration that all foods were clean.'
Not that this declaration
did away with the positive law on the subject;
it was meant simply to show
that this law was a positive law or perhaps that it was a merely temporary
enactment.
The main thing henceforth was that no one should misunderstand,
what it was that God chiefly asked of man.
It was not He who had prescribed
those scrupulosities of outward cleanliness that were mistaken for purity
of soul.
Purity of soul belongs to the heart;
similarly it is from the heart
that proceed those evil thoughts which are the root of all the vices,
such
as the sins which do in effect destroy bodily purity,
those which defy God
like blasphemy,
and those which injure our neighbour like theft and murder.
top
Jesus grants the prayer of a Gentile woman (115).
Mark
vii.24-30; Matthew
xv.21-28.
[The story is omitted by Luke,
for some of his Gentile readers
might have been offended,
wrongly supposing that the dogs were an allegory
for them.
Matthew has developed Mark's rather abrupt style.]
|
Capharnaum seems to have been the place where Jesus stayed longest after His
return from Jerusalem.
He now directs His steps towards the north-west where
lies the district of Tyre, which He traverses northward as far as Sidon.
But
He comes back at once to the lakeside and reaches the domain of Philip, visiting
Bethsaida and Gassarea.
The evangelists do not enlighten us about the object
of this visit to Sidon.
If Jesus had wanted to escape pursuit by the police
of Herod Antipas,
He would have avoided going into that tetrarch's territory
to begin with after His return from Jerusalem.
Nor does there seem any intention
on His part to preach outside the borders of Israel,
for He does not address
the Gentiles.
His purpose then was probably to avoid arousing Herod's uneasiness,
by frequently moving from one place to another and keeping away from the neighbourhood
of Tiberias where Herod usually lived.
People came to ask for miracles and
gathered eagerly to hear Him as He went from place to place;
but in that way
there was no permanent centre of excitement.
By taking His disciples far away
from their usual occupations, far too, as much as was possible, from the annoying
enquiries of the Pharisees, Jesus gained the advantage of having them more
completely under His influence in order to bring them up after His own spirit.
In spite of His desire for solitude,
He was recognized as soon as He entered
the district of Tyre.
A woman threw herself at His feet begging for her daughter
to be delivered from possession by an unclean spirit.
The pagans believed as
strongly as the Jews in these seizures of man by a being stronger than himself,
and it was the pagans who were responsible for the word ' demon' by which they
meant beings much lower than the gods but superior to men, malevolent beings
who annoyed men in every way and led them on to evil actions.
This pagan woman
Mark calls a Syrophenician, for the old Phenicia had become part of the Roman
province of Syria.
Matthew calls her a Canaanite, the old Israelite name for
the inhabitants of Palestine;
it is just as if we were to speak of the French
as Gauls.
Her request is not granted,
for the time of the Gentiles has not yet come:
'Suffer first the children to be filled,
for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'
In a place like this, so near to Israel, everyone would be
aware of what the Jews claimed for themselves.
This woman would also know
what miracles Jesus had worked on their behalf.
She had no difficulty, therefore,
in understanding the meaning of His reply:
it was a refusal.
But would Jesus
return to this district after He had completed His work among His own people?
Very aptly, without any sense of grievance but full of confidence, she returns
parable for parable:
Is it not the truth that,
even before the children have
finished eating,
the little dogs snatch up the bits which fall from the table?
It is faith that Jesus sees in this witty reply coming from the woman's anxious
heart -
the faith that draws miracles from Him.
The miracle she desires is
already performed.
He tells her, and she departs full of confidence.
She found
her daughter freed.
We may ask,
if Jesus allows the Gentiles to snatch this
crumb from Him,
what will it be when their time has come?
top
The healing of a deaf man with an impediment in his speech (116).
Mark
vii.31-37; Matthew
xv.29-31.
[The general purpose of this passage of Matthew is to serve
as an introduction to the second multiplication of loaves.
Properly speaking, there is no parallel to Mark's narrative here in the other
gospels.]
Continuing his way northward Jesus comes to Sidon, the very ancient capital
of the Phoenician cities.
It was not so rich as Tyre had been in the days of
its glory, but it continually regained its prosperity after decline.
Its situation in the midst of a ring of well-watered gardens was beyond compare.
If Jesus passed through the city,
He did not, however, make any stay.
Traversing
the line of lofty hills to the south of the Lebanon mountain-range,
He turned
south-east as if with the intention of reaching the lake of Galilee;
but
avoiding Herod's territory and crossing the upper Jordan,
probably at the
place known as the Bridge of Jacob's Daughters,
He arrived at the Decapolis.
Even assuming that He did not stay anywhere,
the journey must have taken
several days:
they were precious days for the disciples.
It was somewhere within this extensive district of the Ten Cities
and not
very far from the lake [Mark viii.10.]
that they
brought to Jesus a deaf man with an impediment in his speech.
They begged Him to lay His hands on the man;
they therefore
believed in the Master's power, but at the same time were under the impression
that this rite of laying on hands had some special efficacy and that Jesus
could not do without it.
Already once before Jesus had not thought fit to act
in the manner suggested to Him [Mark v.23, 41.],
and, as before, when He raised the daughter
ofJairus from the dead, so now He does not admit the crowd to see the miracle.
He takes the man by himself -
this does not exclude the disciples -
puts His fingers into the deaf ears,
and touches the man's mouth with spittle from His own mouth,
then with a sigh He raises His eyes to heaven,
saying : 'Ephphata,' which means, Be thou opened!
We might almost say that this miracle requires greater effort on His part.
Yet it was He who had healed the officer's son at a distance.
Why then did
He now choose to adapt His actions to the character of the malady, to touch
the ears and tongue, to use spittle, speech, and command?
Was it not He who
had only just delivered a possessed child without even giving any order to
the evil spirit?
Perhaps He wanted to show His disciples that His sacred humanity
contained the remedy suited to all our ailments.
Whatever the method He employs,
the miracle proceeds from His free will;
but, as was proved on the occasion
of the healing of the woman with an issue of blood, there really existed in
Him a power which co-operated with the action of God who is the primary cause
of the miracle.
Jesus demanded silence concerning this miracle, but He
did not obtain it.
More than ever was His fame spread abroad by the wondering
and joyful crowds.
top
The second multiplication of loaves (117).
Mark viii.1-10; Matt. xv.32-39.
By this time they had arrived near to the lake of Tiberias.
Jesus had gone
up a hill and was sitting there.
People came and put their sick down before
His feet.
When He healed them a new outburst of religious fervour arose,
for
at sight of all these miracles a chorus of praise arose to the glory of the
God of Israel.
[Matthew xv.31.
After the incident of the Canaanitic woman we do not expect to find numerous
cures granted to pagans who thus give glory to the God of Israel, a strange God
to the pagans.
Here, therefore, the speakers are Jews.
In Philip's dominions, especially north of the lake, the Jews were assuredly
in the majority.]
Then there took place one of those incidents which people were
beginning to be accustomed to look for from Jesus in His goodness.
The whole
multitude had been with Him three days,
and other sick people were continually
being brought;
with the cures the crowd grew in number.
Everything was forgotten
at sight of this extraordinary spectacle.
They had nothing to eat.
Jesus, therefore,
after having rewarded their faith by miracles, took compassion on them.
He
would not let them go away fasting, for some of them had come from afar and
might have fainted on their way home.
It was then the full heat of summer which
is very oppressive in that low-lying basin surrounded by mountains.
On this occasion the Apostles had a little store of seven loaves -
hardly
enough for their own needs -
and a few little fishes they had caught.
Jesus took the
loaves and, giving thanks,
He broke them and had them distributed by the disciples.
He did likewise with the fishes.
Four thousand people were thus fed and seven
baskets
filled with the fragments left over were taken away.
[The baskets used for carrying food were larger than those
(called kufas) used in agriculture.]
He dismissed the crowd without any difficulty.
The place of the miracle was
almost the same as that of the former multiplication of loaves,
and must have
been near the shore,
for Jesus at once went on board a boat with His disciples.
He came then, says St. Mark, into the region of Dalmanutha.
St. Matthew says the region of Magedan.
[The two evangelists are in agreement on the point that
the place where they landed was not precisely a town but a district belonging
to a city.
Mark's name, Dalmanutha, seems to be more no than a repetition of εἰς τὰ μέρη
in Syriac.
Matthew's Magedan, read by Eusebius as Μαγεδαν, is asserted by that writer to
be in the neighbourhood of Gerasa.
The reading Magdala in Matthew seems to be a correction of Magedan in favour
of some place that is known.]
Both names are unknown apart from
this place,
but it seems likely that the region referred to must be on the
western shore,
for there we are about to meet the Pharisees again.
top
Jesus refuses to give a sign from heaven (118).
Mark
viii.11-13; Matt.
xvi.1-4.
[We here follow Mark.
Matthew's text is composed of different incidents.
Cf. Luke xii.54-56 and Matthew xii.38-42, which we shall see later.
It is only natural that the Jews should often have demanded a sign.]
Hardly had Jesus and His disciples landed when they were approached by a number
of Pharisees from the neighbouring city who were particularly unfriendly, for
they came merely in order to dispute.
Doubtless because they were discontented
at the turn the conversation took, they broke it off by asking Jesus for a
sign from heaven.
It seemed a not unreasonable request in so far as the Messiah
was expected to give proofs of His divine mission.
But had not Jesus continually
given such signs by means of His miracles?
Although He had not put them forward
as proofs -
as did the false Messiahs when they promised such marvels as the
dividing of the waters of the Jordan,
if only the people would first follow
them -
and although the cures He worked were signs of His goodness of heart
as much as of His power, nevertheless that did not detract in any way from
the divine value of these signs.
The Pharisees, however, want things to be
done in the manner that seems good to them.
They would prefer some extraordinary
phenomenon taking place in the sky.
This obstinate adherence to their own opinions
draws a sigh from Jesus.
These men of His own time, His own brethren, this
generation to which He Himself belongs since He is of the same race, seem determined
not to yield until they have received the sign they require.
It will not be
given them.
Jesus returns to the other side of the lake whither the Pharisees
will not follow Him.
top
Jesus teaches His disciples (119).
Mark viii.14-21; Matt. xvi.5-12.
The departure had been sudden, and as the Pharisees had come to meet Jesus
by the shore, the disciples had not thought of going into the city to buy bread.
As soon as they were out on the lake they remembered, but then it was too late.
They had only one loaf or small cake of bread which had been left in the boat,
for they often snatched a light meal while in the boat, eating bread with fish
or olives and quenching their thirst with water from the lake.
Jesus was still sad at heart.
On the side of the lake from which He had just
departed the Pharisees had acquaintances among Herod's courtiers, frivolous
individuals who perhaps had been responsible for that haughty demand for a
sign asked by the Pharisees when they came to embarrass Jesus.
These courtiers
had little regard for the things that concern the soul, but they were eager
in search of novelties and pleased at the idea of witnessing some striking
marvel.
The Master is concerned to put His disciples on their guard against
the danger of such a mentality, which He likens to leaven.
Leaven causes the
dough to rise by means of fermentation which, as people already knew, was merely
a process of corruption.
In a similar way when evil thoughts are put into the
heart they unfailingly corrupt its simplicity.
Herod's servants, like their
master, thought only of worldly pleasure, and they sought to gain his favour
just as he courted the favour of Tiberius.
The Pharisees, it is true, preached
virtue, but they loaded themselves with observances that encumbered the free
movement of the heart towards God, even when these observances were inspired
by a zeal that was sincere.
Full of solicitude for His disciples
and wishing to arouse their attention by means of the enigmatic character of His words,
Jesus breaks the silence with a cry of:
'Take heed!
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and the leaven of Herod!'
But it is His thoughts alone that are concentrated on the things of the soul.
Intimate as the disciples are with Him, witnesses of His life and hearers of
His word, they move as it were in a different atmosphere.
The same set of words
have one meaning for Him and another for them.
They
think of the bread that keeps them alive,
and it was doubtless only at this
moment that they perceived their negligence in omitting to bring a supply.
Jesus usually relied on them to attend to the necessary provisions.
At once
they begin to dispute among themselves, and we can well imagine that it is
because they try to shift the responsibility for the oversight on to one
another.
This causes Jesus to grieve,
How is it that they are so dull to
perceive spiritual truths?
Have they also eyes that they may not see, ears
that they may not hear, hearts that are hardened?
But they have seen, no
detail has escaped them, and they have forgotten nothing.
For when Jesus
asks them how many baskets full of fragments they took away at the first
multiplication of loaves, they answer without hesitating:
Twelve.
And how
many baskets on the second occasion?
Seven.
If they have forgotten nothing,
then why have they not understood?
Everything that He says and does has
a moral significance, a religious meaning;
it is a call to raise up ourselves
simply to God instead of allowing ourselves to be absorbed by earthly cares.
He by no means promises that He will renew the miraculous multiplication
of bread on their behalf in order to make good their negligence.
But even
if they think only of bread when He speaks to them of a leaven that is of
a secret character, that bread should remind them of the great miracles which
He has used in order to teach them such lofty truths.
They must equally understand
in a spiritual sense what He has said about the leaven of which they have
to beware.
Indeed they did consider the matter in this way, and they understood
that their Master wished to warn them against the corruption of the spirit,
as we learn from Matthew.
[It is Matthew alone who draws this conclusion (xvi.12),
which brings the episode to an end in the same way as it had begun.]
Henceforth they are more attentive to the wonders
worked before their eyes,
and they learn how to interpret them as a sign
to be believed in.
Certainly no one can say that St. Mark has tried to shield the Apostles from
blame.
It has even been maintained that he deliberately shows up their shortcomings;
but that is going a little too far.
After all their attitude was quite natural;
and a few lines further on St.
Mark comes to St. Peter's confession.
This one warning, however severe it may
have been, has not completely changed their dispositions.
The disciples did
not doubt their Master;
they had faith in Him and were faithful to Him.
But they allowed themselves
to be taken up by their daily cares, not being as yet wholly absorbed by
zeal for the kingdom of God.
Who would venture to blame them?
The slowness
of their will is due to dullness of understanding.
Men of the people as they
were,
living by the labour of their hands,
absorbed until now in daily solicitude
concerning the necessities of life,
they did not find it easy to lay aside
that solicitude.
Jesus took them as they were,
and gradually accustomed them
to imitate Him in raising their minds to higher things.
On occasion He rebukes
them in the manner and with the energy that we learn from the gospels.
He
is severe with His friends, as He is severe in reprimanding His enemies.
It is no idyll;
it is rather a hard school of perfection.
But so much the
more did they perceive in all this a love that was deep, exacting,
yet at
the same time tender as a father's.
top
The blind man of Bethsaida (120).
Thus they were back once more in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida,
where the
two multiplications of bread had taken place.
We know that the evangelists
have not told us all that occurred during the ministry of Jesus;
still the
impression left by the narrative of Mark, which is the most detailed, is that
the recent journey across the lake was all to no purpose.
There is no reason
to take scandal from this;
on the contrary it gives us an occasion for recognizing what was one of the
essential features of Our Lord's life, one of the laws ruling His Incarnation.
He had plainly shown Satan, at the time of the Temptation, that He was determined
to adhere to the will of God without seeking any personal advantage by interfering
with the laws of nature.
Later He gave commands to the powers of nature when
circumstances seemed to require His intervention, but most often He allowed
Himself to be guided by events, taking them as signs of His Father's will.
After having met with this bad reception on the western shore of the lake.
He returns to the eastern shore and resuming His journey northward He enters
Bethsaida.
He was well known there,
and there were no Pharisees to come between Him and the multitude.
In the city He was asked to heal a blind man by His touch;
He agrees to do
so,
but His manner of procedure is more mysterious than ordinarily on these
occasions.
He had only recently refused in the presence of His disciples to
give a heavenly sign;
perhaps it was His intention not to astonish them so
soon after
by arousing popular enthusiasm in performing publicly a miracle
which could have been taken as a messianic sign. [Isaias,
xxxv.5.]
He takes the blind man by the hand and leads him out of the town,
puts spittle upon his eyes,
lays His hands on him,
then asks him whether he sees,
as if He were doubtful about the efficacy of the treatment.
The man answers:
'I see men like trees walking.'
Jesus then lays His hands on the man's eyes
and he then begins to see everything clearly.
He is commanded to go back home without passing through the town.
Thus the miracle was concealed from public knowledge;
indeed it was almost
hidden from the Apostles under the appearance of slow improvement and the natural
action of saliva, which people considered as beneficial in cases of disease
of the eyes, provided it was the spittle of a person who was fasting.
[Talmud of Jerusalem, Shabbath, XIV, 14d.]
The
miracle was however undeniable, though there was no display about it;
and
Mark certainly did not relate it merely in order to explain Peter's confession.
Being something done by Jesus, it must, like all else that He did, contain
a lesson.
Increasing light is the natural symbol of the mind's advance towards truth.
If the blind man only recovered his sight by degrees,
was it to be wondered
at that the Master's lessons penetrated the minds of His disciples only little
by little?
The time would come when they would see plainly,
when moreover
they would understand the wisdom of that slow preparation.
St. Mark, who draws
more attention than the other evangelists to the Apostles' slowness of understanding,
intended to show by this miracle-parable how Christ's method of teaching was
typified by the healing of blindness.
His method was harmonious, full of gentle
condescension,
but at the same time it was effective in gaining its object.
top
Peter's confession and Christ's promise (121).
Luke ix.18-21; Mark viii.27-30; Matt. xvi.13-20.
And now the time had come when Jesus, to fulfil His Father's purpose, had
resolved to determine perfectly clearly the relations between Himself and His
disciples.
They were His followers;
they were devoted to Him;
they loved
Him;
they knew Him for a prophet powerful in word and deed,
the Son of Man
and the Son of God,
and these things served to indicate that He was the Messiah,
though His manner of action did not seem to be in harmony with the role of
Messiah.
When was He to enter on His real career, and what was that career
to be?
What part would they play in it?
Jesus had refused to be hailed as
Messiah by the multitude,
but perhaps He would agree to accept the title from
them.
In a word, there is a strong temptation to think that, notwithstanding
their very intimate and affectionate relations with Him, there was a doubt
still weighing on their minds.
Jesus therefore is now about to urge them to
speak openly to Him,
to reveal to Him their thoughts.
Once He has got them
firmly to agree that He is the Messiah foretold by the Scriptures,
He will
tell them what God expects of the Messiah,
what sort of death is decreed for
Him,
what glory is reserved for Him.
He will tell them also what God also demands
from those who resolve to follow the Messiah.
It is now that the true nature
of Messianism appears;
it is nothing but the spirit of Christianity.
As Jesus
has to die before entering into His glory,
He must now reveal the preparations
He has made for the period following His death,
arrange the plan that His work
is to follow,
and make known His purpose of founding a society with Peter at
its head.
Not everything is disclosed - it never is on this earth -
but a wonderful
prospect is revealed to our gaze:
the human race organized in a way to pursue
an altogether new ideal.
Continuing northwards, they came to the neighbourhood of Csesarea Philippi
which was on the extreme borders of the land of Israel, but in territory that
was now pagan.
It lay near one of the sources of the Jordan consecrated to
the god Pan by a temple in his honour;
hence the name Banias by which this
lovely spot is still known.
The city bore the
name Caesarea after the emperor, whose worship was soon to overshadow the
worship of all other deities,
and it was called Caesarea of Philip because
that tetrarch, half pagan himself, had built the place in honour of Caesar
Augustus.
Here there was no sign of that bitter opposition of the Pharisees
which had its centre at Jerusalem but pursued Jesus even into Galilee.
Here
no crowds thronged the roads after Jesus.
The disciples, knowing that He did
not preach the kingdom of God to pagans, wondered what was thei purpose of
this journey into a district which, although! thickly populated, left them
feeling more lonely than if they were in the desert.
In a lonely place [Luke ix.18.] on
the road [Mark viii.27.], and therefore still a long
way from the city, Jesus first prays, as though to recall His disciples to
recollection and to emphasize the divine character of the step He was about
to take, and then offers His friends the opportunity of unburdening their souls
by confiding to Him all that is in their minds.
In order to help them He first asks what other people think of Him.
They reply that some take Him for John the Baptist, others for Elias, others
still mention Jeremias or one of the old prophets.
Remarkable conjectures,
these!
Thus the ministry of Jesus was marked by so many miracles that no
one could take Him for a mere ordinary man.
With the death of John the Baptist
had vanished the spirit of the ancient prophets, and it seemed too much to
expect that such wretched days as the ones in which men now lived should produce
a new prophet.
There was nothing left to hope for but the Messiah.
The more
learned among the Jews knew that the Messiah was to be preceded by Elias
whose office it would be to anoint Him.
That Jesus did not put Himself forward
as the Messiah all seemed agreed;
but was it possible that He was Elias,
the Messiah's precursor?
According to others the role of precursor was to
be filled by Jeremias or some other of the ancient prophets, no one knew
whom.
Others finally held that God's evident purpose in raising up John the
Baptist could never be prevented by that prophet's obscure death;
John had
come back to life, was at work again and would soon declare himself openly.
'But you,'
Jesus went on to say,
'whom do you say that I am?'
Peter answered:
'Thou art the Messiah.'
[Expressed by all three Synoptists in the same terms.]
He had asked them all their opinion, and Peter was answering
for them all.
But Peter did not take the time to find out what each one thought
for himself.
Whether it was that he already felt certain,
or whether he spoke
from his eager and impulsive nature,
he asserted without hesitation what was
dictated to him by his faith and his love.
What Peter believes with all his
heart is that Jesus is the promised and awaited Messiah.
St. Mark's narrative stops there, as does that of St. Luke who here follows
Mark according to custom.
But there is something unfinished about the incident
so recorded.
How is it that, after Jesus has questioned His disciples about
what they and other people think of Him,
He does not tell them in His turn
who He really is?
It is evident that He did not question them in order to
learn, but in order to teach.
A curt recommendation to say nothing about Him
to anyone could just as well be taken for a denial as for an approval of what
they say.
It may be that St. Mark stopped there because it was not St. Peter's
habit to speak of the surpassing honour paid to him in the words with which
Christ had congratulated him.
St. Matthew, however, preserves for us Peter's
answer in a form such as is demanded by the occasion,
and it is an answer that
is conformable with a more complete confession on the part of Peter.
He answered:
'Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God.'
Such an answer suits the circumstances.
Jesus had given an explanation of who He was after the first multiplication
of bread.
He had not been willing to accept the title of King,
for a different
title suited Him better,
that of Son of God come down from heaven.
Almost all
were scandalized,
but Peter, in the name of the Twelve, had confessed that
Jesus was the Holy One of God.
St. John alone has related these facts,
but
they give a perfect explanation of Peter's second confession
which was fuller
and more exact because he had been inwardly enlightened.
The three synoptic
gospels had, however, already brought up the question concerning Christ's divinity,
whether on account of the forced admissions of the demons [Matthew
viii.29; Mark iii.11; v.7; Luke iv.41; viii.28.] or on occasion of
the admiration shown by the people at sight of His great prodigies. [Matthew
xiv.33.]
St. Peter
takes up his stand on this important point more definitely than anyone had
ever done,
for he does not merely say like those who saw the stilling of the tempest:
' Thou art indeed a son of God,'
but: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.'
And thus he shows that he has really understood the words of
Jesus:
'As My Father who liveth hath sent Me.'
[John vi.57, 58.]
When Jesus declared before His judges that He was the Son of God, the high
priest rent his garments.
Had He not been really the Son of God, Jesus must
Himself have shown a holy indignation at Peter's bold utterance.
At all events
it was due to Him to make some answer.
We possess that answer,
and it still
resounds in our ears,
day by day and age after age.
Why should we not declare
that it is the fulfilment of prophecy and understand it in the light of prophecy?
Thus hailed as Son of God, Jesus in His turn names the father of the man to
whom He speaks and immortalizes the name of Jona.
But it was not from his father
nor from any relation of flesh and blood that Simon, son of Jona, had learnt
the truth that he has just declared;
by his love for Jesus he has been admitted
to intimacy with the heavenly Father, and it is He who has revealed the truth
to Simon.
Jesus therefore, in the name of His Father, confirms what Simon has
said of Him.
And now He is going to say what He thinks of His disciple.
Before
the disciple chose Jesus as his Master he was called Simon.
Jesus had already
made known [John i.42. See above, page 88.] His intention of calling him Cephas,
a name taken from the Aramaic
word meaning a stone or rock.
We do not know whether the word was already in
use as a proper name,
or whether Jesus created the name for His own purpose.
Dwelling upon the meaning of the word He declares:
'And I say to thee, that thou art Peter (Kepha ),
and upon this rock (kepha ) I will build My Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'
'Against it' -
that is
to say against the Church -
a word we cannot utter now without at the same
time clothing it with a grandeur that is immense;
but when it was first uttered
by Christ
it did not convey any idea of the innumerable congregation
or gathering
of those who were to follow Him.
Understood whether in a universal or more
restricted sense,
the Church is a community of men which Christ compared to
a building on a rock:
the rock was the man who had uttered the mystery of
the divine sonship of Jesus.
Peter, then, was to be the foundation and the organ of divine truth.
Over against this building we are given a glimpse of another, a citadel defended
by towers;
it is thus the symbol of a hostile power.
The gates of which Christ
speaks are the gates of Hades, as the gospel calls them,
a name borrowed from
paganism where it was used to denote the abode of the dead,
but used by the
Jews to refer to a place of torment for the damned.
[Formerly we used to refer to Turkey as the Sublime Porte
on account of a great gateway, in the form of a pylon, which formed the entrance
to the Grand Vizier's office at Constantinople.]
It is therefore the kingdom
of Satan that sets itself up against the earthly kingdom of Christ,
but it
will never be able to triumph over it or shake the foundation on which Christ
built it.
We are given to understand, then, that Peter was to be the spiritual head
of the kingdom of Christ, its appointed teacher of truth.
By the use of a different
symbol Jesus goes on to show the universal character of Peter's power.
He will
give to him, as to the head of His earthly kingdom, the keys that every master
of a house during his absence entrusts to his faithful major-domo;
and, since
the earthly kingdom is founded merely as a preparation for the heavenly kingdom,
whatever measures Peter takes on earth will be ratified in heaven.
If he binds
on earth, the sentence holds good in heaven;
if he looses, pardon is granted
in heaven.
Binding and loosing are, as it were, representative of the extreme
limits which include all the administrative acts of him who has the keys of
that kingdom which is begun on earth and brought to perfection in the presence
of God.
Such are Christ's words to Simon Peter.
He does not say:
'I give thee this power, to thee and thy successors.'
Had He so spoken, He
would have needed to explain who and what these successors were to be;
He
wished to say nothing that would give an indication of the duration of the
kingdom which He was founding.
Any historian who weighs the value of words
will therefore beware of forcing their meaning, and he will raise no difficulty
in admitting the contention of all sects of Protestantism that Christ's promise
mentions none but Peter.
At the same time he will demand that Protestants first
recognize that Jesus was really speaking to Peter, and not merely playing with
words;
that He was not indulging in equivocation by summoning Peter and
saying to him:
'It is rather striking that you are called Peter, for I shall
build My Church upon a rock, and I am that rock.'
No; the Church is really
built upon Peter in the sense that he is its head.
That is the way in which
Peter understood it and the other Apostles too, since they respected his
authority.
Peter went to Rome and suffered martyrdom there.
There his tomb was shown.
The Church did not die with him, however, and was it to have no other head?
Someone took Peter's place as shepherd of the Roman flock, and therefore inherited
Peter's power over that flock.
But what of the Church as a whole, the Church
which had such a vivid consciousness (so forcefully insisted on by St. Paul)
of being a unity, of being the body of Christ?
Was it to have no foundation?
Christ had appointed Peter as the foundation,
and although Peter was dead the building remained;
it had the same enemies,
and it still stood firm thanks to the rock on which it was built.
Indeed it
was Peter who remained all the time, though no longer Peter in person but his
office, delegated to the one who had taken his place. Christ's promise could
not fail;
the very fact that there have been successors of Peter indicates
the object for which that promise was made.
It was guarded in its manner of
expression, but its full meaning appeared when the realities of the situation
in which the Church was placed forced the revelation of all the truth the promise
contained.
So true is this that some critics - those of the most independent character
- maintain that the Roman Church herself has added to the gospel these lines
which have been responsible for her success down the ages.
But in answer to
this we have only to point out the fact that the Roman Church has not been
free from opposition in the exercise of her authority.
When Pope Victor imposed
his will in the Quartodeciman dispute he was met with resistance from the Bishop
of Ephesus.
But if this felicitous Petrine text was only of recent origin,
what would have been simpler than for the bishop to have pointed this out?
[Had the text been composed in the second century for the
benefit of the Roman Church it would certainly have alluded explicitly to Peter's
successors.
The truth is that it was the existence and history of the Church of Rome which
revealed the profound sense of the words.
The authentic meaning of the text has been fully stated by the Vatican Council.]
Moreover there is not a passage in the whole of the four gospels which
is more clearly Aramaic in terms, metaphors, and construction.
Some see in
this proof of the contention that the Petrine text is to be attributed to
the editorship of some Jewish Christian who desired to support Peter's claims
among the Palestinian faithful.
But if these claims were in fact admitted,
would it not be far simpler to say that they were admitted because they were
based on an authentic declaration of Christ?
The nearer we approach to the
source of these claims, the easier it is to explain the facts.
After the
Resurrection Peter assumed the direction of all.
He was already shown in
the gospel acting as the chief of the Apostles.
He could not have acted thus
without the knowledge of Jesus;
and if Jesus Himself was the real head,
it was for Him to give some explanation of what was meant by St. Peter's
place and office.
This He did in terms that told the greatness of that place
and office in the Church, in terms that laid down the conditions for the
future - a future as yet hidden, nevertheless a future in which Christ's word
was law.
And we see with ever-growing clarity how that word of His still
rules, and with a power that is ever more effective.
top
The first prediction of the Passion and Resurrection (122).
Luke ix.22; Mark viii.31-33; Matt. xvi.21-23.
More than a year had passed -
more than half the time allotted to His ministry
-
before Jesus welcomed and confirmed His Apostles' faith in Him as the Messiah
sent by God and as Son of God.
The Galilaeans would have acclaimed Him as Messiah
if only He had put Himself at their head, but they had refused to believe in
a spiritual Messiah.
The name of Messiah was likely to be misunderstood;
therefore
Jesus commanded His friends to keep silent about it.
We see all the more reason
for this when we call to mind that the Apostles were still in ignorance of
the humiliations which were to precede their Master's glory.
From now on they
believed firmly in the glory that was to be His,
and that made it all the more
necessary to remove any illusions they might still retain concerning the Messiah
and earthly triumph.
This Jesus proceeds to do immediately.
Before a year was
out He was to meet His Passion;
in speaking of this He ran the risk of making
them anticipate
that source of scandal,
an inevitable source of scandal for them even after
He had forewarned them.
They acknowledged that their Master was the Son of
God;
but at the same time He was Son of Man, and as such was destined for
suffering.
Would not Israel take up arms to rescue Him from that?
No; on
the contrary He would be rejected by the elders of the nation and by the
priests.
He was to be put to death.
In that case, what about the glory of
the Messiah?
He would rise again on the third day.
Such a glorious outcome of his Master's sufferings seems insufficient to the
heart of Peter,
who is aghast at hearing this clear and unmistakable assertion.
He is the more upset inasmuch as his own faith has been expressed with such
great assurance.
He alone of the disciples -
and not without a touch of that presumption which was the defect of his resolute character -
takes it upon himself to cheer his Master,
even to rebuke Him:
'God forbid, Lord,
it shall not be so.'
[Matthew xvi.22.]
But a moment ago Peter was enlightened by the Father;
now he
is no more than the mouthpiece of common human aspirations.
But on this, as
on the former occasion, the reply of Jesus is quick to come, and it is as strong
in reproach as the former reply had been warm in approbation:
'Go behind Me, Satan:
thou art a scandal unto Me.'
But in spite of that we cannot but
congratulate Peter on being so much loved by Christ.
top
He who desires to be saved must follow Jesus (123).
Luke ix.23-26; Mark viii.34-38; Matt. xvi.24-27.
Of course Peter could not be for Jesus a cause of stumbling;
it was not in his power to turn Jesus from accepting the sorrowful Passion
laid upon Him by His Father.
Rather was it Jesus who was to become the stumbling-block
and the rock of offence for the two houses of Israel, as Isaias had said. [Isaias
viii.14. See Le Scandale de Jésus, by Pere Allo, O.P.]
There were always some among the crowd who were won over by His words and His
kindness;
but were they ready to follow Him under any conditions?
On this
point every doubt was now to be removed, especially for those who were already
His disciples.
Jesus utters those words which set in such strong contrast life
here below and
life in the next world, words which compel a man to make his choice, to renounce
the world and life itself if necessary, even to renounce himself unless he
wishes to be rejected by the Son of Man when He comes in His glory.
In two
or three words He describes the ascent of the soul to the summit of perfection,
and that ascent begins from the resolution to be saved which each one must
make.
In dealing with this subject a careful writer, striving to set out his ideas
in a logical order depending on the end which was desired, would have inverted
the order followed by Jesus in this discourse.
The desired end is that we may
not be rejected by Him who is the arbiter of our salvation.
It is salvation
alone that matters, and even the whole world , is of no account in comparison
with the soul's salvation.
The soul must therefore be saved, even at the risk
of life.
To accomplish that we have to follow Him who will decide the soul's
destiny.
But the order of ideas is different in the words which come from the
lips of Jesus.
Perhaps it would be better to say that His meaning grows out
of the chain of His ideas.
It is of Himself He speaks, and of those men of
good will who profess themselves ready to follow Him. It is necessary that
they renounce all self-seeking and be resolved to bear their cross like men
condemned to death.
A strange paradox, to ask men to save their souls by first
sacrificing their lives in so real a manner as that!
To lose one's life means,
as we still say, to give up the ghost or the soul;
but when a man offers up his life for Jesus and the gospel he saves his immortal
soul.
So great is the worth of the soul that, if a man were to lose it, there
would be nothing he could give in exchange in order to get it back.
No, not
even the whole world, if he had it at his disposal, would be enough.
Then,
tearing the veil from the future,
Jesus reveals Himself coming as the Son of
Man with the holy angels in the glory of His Father.
When He so comes,
those
who have been ashamed of Him and His words,
who have allowed themselves to
be scandalized on account of His humiliations and failure.
He in His turn will
deny.
[Mark and Luke express the matter thus:
Matthew in a more general fashion says that Jesus will render to everyone according
to his works.]
Now they know what Jesus is and what they must be.
He is the Messiah;
He
is even invested with that judicial power which ordinarily the Jews did not
grant to the King who was to come, reserving it solely to God.
But He is a
suffering Messiah,
and He must be followed along His path of sorrow.
What is
the exact measure in which His followers will be obliged to exercise renunciation?
Jesus does not answer that question.
He only lays down the essential condition
which consists in the readiness to give up everything for His sake, even
life itself,
and in the resolve really to follow Him without being ashamed
of Him or of His teaching.
Thus the gospel of the kingdom of God becomes the gospel of what must be believed
concerning Jesus and of what must be done in regard to Him by those who believe.
There is nothing new in this doctrine except Himself.
The Jews were already
familiar with the distinction He draws between the present world and the world
to come;
moreover the book of Wisdom had taught them what price, in the shape
of suffering, would have to be paid by the despised righteous man in order
that he might attain to life with God. [Wisdom ii.]
Jesus adds only one condition of salvation:
that we follow Him.
He retracts
nothing of what He has said concerning the kingdom of God on earth;
nay, He
has just been making provision for the continuance of that kingdom.
He adds
that He is in close touch with it,
just as He is in close touch with the kingdom
of heaven.
At this point it must have been recognized even by the multitude
that the ultimate goal of His mission was eternal life.
The true purpose of
the Messiah was to lead men to that life,
and those who did not follow Him
would be shut out from eternal life.
He had already taught such a transcendent Messianism after the multiplication
of the loaves and during the feast of Pentecost, as we learn from St. John.
There He had expressed it in even grander terms,
though here in the Synoptists
we find something more.
In the fourth gospel Jesus had revealed Himself as
the one who gives life and who will raise the dead.
Men had only to believe
in Him in order to receive the life that He was to give and to be admitted
as well to that life of glory which was to follow the resurrection of the dead.
But there nothing was said of the sorrowful Passion:
yet it had to be taken
into account.
[Unless we are to say that it is referred to in the enigmatic
expressions of John iii.14and vi.51 (52);
and even then the question remains whether John vi.51 belongs to the same period
as the earlier part of the discourse in ch. vi.]
The law imposed upon the Master must in some way be
applied to the disciples.
Here then Jesus appeals to their good will, their
courage and their self-denial;
and so strong is that appeal,
so encouraging
is His promise
that we shall be with Him
if we follow in His footsteps,
that
untold numbers of human creatures have embraced that way of suffering.
It
has even seemed sweet to those who have taken up the cross in imitation of
their Saviour and have renounced the pleasures of the world, in full confidence
that when He comes in His glory He will not deny them.
top
The speedy coming of the kingdom of God (124).
Luke ix.27; Mark ix.1 (viii.39); Matt. xvi.28.
This work of saving souls by leading them to follow Him was to be the normal
consequence of His mission which He had begun by establishing the kingdom of
God upon earth.
That is doubtless the reason why the Synoptists have placed
here a notable saying of Jesus which St. Matthew has linked closely with what
has just preceded.
The sombre prospect of the cross was of a nature to raise
doubts about the speedy coming of that kingdom of which Jesus had so often
spoken up to the present.
So He solemnly declares that it will not be long
delayed;
even some of those who listen to Him now will witness it.
Thirty
years were to pass before St. Paul [Romans x.18.] thought he could say that the word of
God had resounded through the whole world, that is to say, as far as the extremities
of the world subject to the empire of Rome.
Then the kingdom of God was in
truth established, fortified with a divine energy, as St. Paul calls the gospel
[Romans i.16.],
manifesting itself in word and work. [Romans i.4; xv.19;
i Corinthians iv.20.]
The seed was evidently the seed of a
great tree;
the future could be judged by the beginnings.
Jesus was therefore once more exercising His prophetical powers when He saw
so near to Him that which He had founded,
what St. Mark calls 'the kingdom
of God come in power,'
and what St. Matthew describes as 'the Son of Man coming
in His kingdom.'
The two expressions are synonymous,
for according to St. Matthew
the Son's kingdom upon earth is nothing but the territory over which
He has made God to reign [Matthew xiii.24 ff.],
and where His power is continually exercised. [2 Matthew xxviii.20.]
top